Injured? Free Advice (800) 777-0028

Michigan No Fault reform: Everything you need to know


The No Fault reform debate in Michigan is heating up. Our attorneys want to provide you with all of the information you need to understand the vital rights that are at stake under proposed No Fault reform efforts, and how such changes would affect you and your families on the roads.

For more information and daily blog posts, take a look at our Michigan Auto Lawyers Blog.

Breaking News: Senate Repubs streamline No Fault strategy with proposed SB 313

SB 313 focuses on imposing price controls on what doctors and hospital charge for treating car accident victims and has no changes or restrictions on PIP benefits.

Michigan House Insurance Committee passes “Substitute for SB 248”

The substitute is waiting a vote from the full Michigan House of Representatives, and includes attendant care restrictions and price controls to boost profits for insurance companies. But for consumers, there’s only one year of $100 savings.

How does No Fault “reform” Senate Bill 248 compare with other No Fault plans?

Here’s a chart that compares SB 248, the Senate Insurance Committee’s “substitute” bill and the Senate-passed version of SB 248 with the No Fault plans that were introduced in the 2013-14 legislative session.

Michigan Senate passes No Fault “reform” law SB 248

Read how consumers lose out after Senate’s gift to car insurance companies, which includes caps on attendant care nursing benefits for injured auto accident victims and no savings on car insurance premiums.

Good riddance to No Fault reform in 2014

None of the more than half-dozen No Fault reform plans introduced in the Legislative session passed last year. Let’s hope lawmakers get the message in 2015.

How does SB 1148 compare to other No Fault reform plans?

This chart lays out the four 2014 No fault reform plans and how they would affect auto accident victims.

Top 6 reasons to say “NO” to House Speaker’s new No Fault reform plan

Learn about how temporary savings, permanent benefits cuts and discrimination against the poor plague the latest plan to dismantle Michigan No Fault.

The Auto Insurance Consumers’ Guide to Michigan No Fault Reform & House Bill 4612

HB 4612 may be the industry’s most ambitious effort to “reform” or dismantle No Fault, it is also its most audacious, outrageous and unacceptable attempt.

14 truths about No Fault “reform” in Michigan

Is No Fault reform good for Michigan, or just good for the auto insurance companies? Find out here.

An analysis of Gov. Snyder’s No Fault reform bill: HB 4612

Read how HB 4612 could cost drivers more for auto insurance, and how it would negatively affect Michigan drivers who are injured in car accidents.

The insurance industry’s top 4 myths about No Fault insurance reform

Here, our lawyers debunk the misleading No Fault reform propaganda that’s currently being pushed by the auto insurance industry.

An open letter to Gov. Snyder regarding Michigan No Fault reform

A list of 8 real reforms that Gov. Snyder should consider to help reduce auto insurance rates and protect Michigan drivers.

Graphic: An open letter to Gov. Snyder

Take a look at this easy-to-understand graphic depicting helpful solutions to lowering Michigan’s auto insurance prices.

HB 4612 medical benefits cap could cost taxpayers $630 million

Learn about the real cost of No Fault “reform” under HB 4612, such bankruptcies, higher health insurance rates and auto insurance and increased Medicaid and Medicare burdens.

Listen to Steve Gursten discuss No Fault reform on NPR Lester Graham of National Public Radio interviews attorney Steven Gursten regarding updates on recent No Fault proposals and how capping medical benefits really wouldn’t lower rates.

Videos: Talking No Fault reform with L. Brooks Patterson

Watch the full discussion in this series of videos as attorney Steven Gursten talks about the benefits of Michigan No Fault with Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson.

Read Our Reviews
Free Consultation
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.